Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[triumphguy]

When I receive in the hand I always check my hand closely for particles of the host.

I am honestly more worried/scrupulous about pieces of the host stuck between my teeth. That worries me more. It feels “uncomfortable” to me. What about the bacteria in your mouth for example.

When I was 7 and received First Holy Communion not only was it on the tongue but we were not allowed to bite or chew it either. The host had to dissolve on the tongue. Sometimes it would stick to my pallet and be there for ages after mass had ended.

I guess that any human touch of the Eucharist is fraught with human difficulties.

And when God gave his Son to us it wasn’t in a glorified form, but as a battered, bruised, pierced, whipped, torn, bloodied and dead body. And when he rose from the dead he retained the marks of his passion and death.

I guess God knew by experience how brutal, unfeeling and uncaring we humans could be, and it is my thought that God is willing to be given in Communion even so, knowing that many who receive are in sin (no matter in what form they receive) and non are worthy.

That’s what makes His gift so amazing.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Yes, well I for one am very thankful for your responses to show my error. I actually did seriously think the Pope said this according to my friend and what I found on google.
I understand google is not the most reliable source but I needed to get to the bottom of this because I lost sleep over it.
I realize in the future I’ll try and trust my Spiritual Director more and try not to let myself get influenced by lay people.
I had 2 people I know put down the congregation he is from and I didn’t know what to think. This is a lesson for me … That God has provided me a Spiritual Director and I should be obedient and listen to his wisdom.
I’m sorry if this thread has caused problems. My impression from people has been that Priests don’t always listen to the Holy Father about things and I jumped to conclusions thinking this was the case. Obviously I was misinformed.

I have to admire you for admitting your error and trying to learn from it. Unfortunately I don’t always do as well as you do and am quite stubborn. Bless you.

 

[agnes_therese]

I’m not trying to be a partisan either way here, but I don’t see how some could choose to receive communion in the hand when they have the option to receive on the tongue and then claim not to be a proponent of receiving in the hand. That doesn’t make sense to me.

What’s so hard to understand about doing what the Church allows?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s the same sort of logic that says that we can have preference for either the OF or the EF but we can’t believe our reasons for our preference have any greater significance than “I like chocolate more than I like vanilla.” In this case, I guess we have to say “I choose CITH or COTT just because I like it.” It seems to me, though, that reasons behind choices in religious practices should have a bit more depth. I believe that they do; I think we would be hard-pressed to find people on CAF whose only reason for choosing EF or OF or CITH or COTT is that they like it that way, end of story.

When it comes to having legitimate options that are allowed by the Church it will always end with the preference of the individual involved.

I hope that this preference is more than just “I like it more”. I see the preference being a decision made by the individual as to what is more spiritually beneficial for them. That is something for them to determine along with their spiritual director.

All these threads that say the EF is superior or that the OF is, or that COTT is better or that CITH is better are all nonsense as they are all legitimate options and all speak to the individual involved.

It is no one’s business what someone prefers, it is not their business as to why they prefer it. As that is necessary for anyone to know is that the Church allows for it.

 

[curlycool89]

I am honestly more worried/scrupulous about pieces of the host stuck between my teeth. That worries me more. It feels “uncomfortable” to me. What about the bacteria in your mouth for example.

I wouldn’t worry too much. His flesh is true food after all, and food gets broken down by bacteria (your stomach has hydrochloric acid and a pH of <3.5, so your mouth is paradise compared to that).

 

[Like]

Quote:
"I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion this way myself. The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel and receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the real presence with an exclamation point."

From Light of the World-
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI’s own words-

Seems to tell it all!

 

[TimothyH]

I’m not trying to be a partisan either way here, but I don’t see how some could choose to receive communion in the hand when they have the option to receive on the tongue and then claim not to be a proponent of receiving in the hand. That doesn’t make sense to me.

I definitely appreciate your point here, but I have to say it’s a very weird situation when exactly that was pretty much universally taught for hundreds of years right up until the time that so many people were “profaning the sacrament” illicitly that the Holy See decided to say that it suddenly wasn’t “profaning the sacrament” any more. That one is pretty hard to explain.

It is fundamentally impossible for the the Magesterium of the Church to redefine sin as acceptable.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Quote:
"I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion this way myself. The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel and receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the real presence with an exclamation point."

Seems to tell it all!

That was the citation that I was trying to paraphrase the other day, because I couldn’t remember the page, even though I was holding the book. The Holy Father has never said that one must receive Communion on the tongue and kneeling. His message is different. It’s been misread. He’s drawing a attention to the Eucharistic Mystery and to the practice, but not imposing the practice.

I don’t know where people got the idea that the Pope wants everyone to receive Holy Communion this way. He never said such a thing. He wants to send a message about the sacrament not promulgate a law. Trust me, if he wanted to promulgate a law, all he needs to do is write another Motu Propio.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[archangel04]

These threads make me incredibly sad, Br. David.

I sometimes see women in the pews weeping after recieving the Eucharist, and grown men too, clearly crying as they try to hold in their emotion.

-Tim-

So are you claiming that people who receive in a manner that the Church allows, in the hand, do not love Jesus, that they deny the real presence?

I think you guys are taking this just too seriously.

 

[TimothyH]

For the record, I’ve also seen this kind of reverence for the empty vessels after Mass. In my parish growing up (OF only) the priest was the only one allowed to wash them and it was done in a special sink not hooked to the normal plumbing.

It’s a sacrarium and it drains to a frech drain or dry well for exactly that purpose.

I am told that not all Churches have them but my Church does and I understand that the vast majority of Churches do. Altar linens, corporals and purificators which are soiled by the precious blood are soaked in the sink and the bowls which the priest uses to purify his hands are poured in the sink.

A sacristan will use it for no other purpose than cleaning, draining or soaking that which has or may have come in contact with the Blessed Sacrament. The lead sacristan would have my head if she found me using it for ordinary purposes.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I think you guys are taking this just too seriously.

People are telling me, and telling those who read these threads but do not post, that those who do not recieve on the tounge love Jesus less, that they commit sacrilege when they don’t receive on the tounge, that they profane the Blessed Sacrament by not recieving on the tounge, etc.

That seems pretty serious to me, especially when the Church herself teaches no such thing.

-Tim-

 

[fred_conty]

Here is official documentation for the reception of holy communion.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Communion-in-the-Hand​

Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an option for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.

In the following documents the citations refer to:
Notitiae (Not.) - the official journal of the Congregation for Divine Worship (which now includes the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments)
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) - the official record “Acts of the Apostolic See,” in which authoritative teaching and legal decrees are published.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. The following norms must therefore be respected. [My emphasis. One wonders if this condition is being met.]

1. The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.
2. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.
3. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s body and blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.
4. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the host in the hand of the communicant. Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten. The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place; the minister’s part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, The body of Christ, to which the communicant replies: Amen. [Note: Rome later forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]
5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that there comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.
6. In the case of communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the host that has been dipped in the Lord’s blood.
7. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving communion are requested to send to this Congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession."

Note: The “Summary of Decrees” on confirmation of the decisions of conferences of bishops in Notitiae lists the granting of this faculty to the following English-speaking conferences (as found in AAS and Notitiae):

Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

 

[fred_conty]

Here is the remainder of the documentaion.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Immensae caritatis, on facilitating reception of Communion in certain circumstances, 29 January 1973: AAS 65 (1973) 264-271; Not 9 (1973) 157-164.

Part 4. Devotion and reverence toward the Eucharist in the case of communion in the hand

Ever since the Instruction Memoriale Domini three years ago, some of the conferences of bishops have been requesting the Apostolic See for the faculty to allow ministers distributing communion to place the eucharistic bread in the hand of the faithful. The same Instruction contained a reminder that “the laws of the Church and the writings of the Fathers give ample witness of a supreme reverence and utmost caution toward the Eucharist” and that this must continue. Particularly in regard to this way of receiving communion, experience suggests certain matters requiring careful attention.

On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts.

The usage of communion in the hand must be accompanied by relevant instruction or catechesis on Catholic teaching regarding Christ’s real and permanent presence under the eucharistic elements and the proper reverence toward this sacrament.

The faithful must be taught that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that therefore the worship of latria or adoration belonging to God is owed to Christ present in this sacrament. They are also to be instructed not to omit after communion the sincere and appropriate thanksgiving that is in keeping with their individual capacities, state, and occupation.

Finally, to the end that their coming to this heavenly table may be completely worthy and fruitful, the faithful should be instructed on its benefits and effects, for both the individual and society, so that their familial relationship to the Father who gives us our “daily bread,” may reflect the highest reverence for him, nurture love, and lead to a living bond with Christ, in whose flesh and blood we share.

Pope Paul Vl approved this Instruction, confirmed it with his authority, and ordered its publication, setting the day of publication as its effective date.

The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question. If abuses are widespread they are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Roman documents, and contrary to the devotion expressed in the early Church when Communion was also received in the hand. Withdrawing this permission in our time on account of the abuses is certainly something Rome could do.

 

[JReducation]

Here is official documentation for the reception of holy communion.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Communion-in-the-Hand​

Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an option for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.

1. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the host in the hand of the communicant. Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten. The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place; the minister’s part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, The body of Christ, to which the communicant replies: Amen. [Note: Rome later forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]

I was going to ask why the folks at EWTN left this in here, when it was revoked almost immediately.

It’s only allowed in religious houses of men, not even women religious. It’s only in the conventual mass, not mass with the public.

Strange that they left this in without a reference to the new canon.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[fred_conty]

I was going to ask why the folks at EWTN left this in here, when it was revoked almost immediately.

It’s only allowed in religious houses of men, not even women religious. It’s only in the conventual mass, not mass with the public.

Strange that they left this in without a reference to the new canon.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

At the end of the paragraph, there is this note:

Note: Rome later forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]

 

[JReducation]

At the end of the paragraph, there is this note:

Note: Rome later forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]

You didn’t insert that?

OK, now it makes more sense. Thanks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

What’s so hard to understand about doing what the Church allows?

I didn’t say it’s hard for me to understand someone receiving communion in the hand. I said it’s hard for me to understand someone who chooses to receive communion in the hand then claiming that they aren’t a proponent of receiving communion in the hand.

 

[triumphguy]

I didn’t say it’s hard for me to understand someone receiving communion in the hand. I said it’s hard for me to understand someone who chooses to receive communion in the hand then claiming that they aren’t a proponent of receiving communion in the hand.

Proponent - one who argues in favor of something : advocate

You can be a recipient of something without being a proponent of that same something.

 

[agnes_therese]

Proponent - one who argues in favor of something : advocate

You can be a recipient of something without being a proponent of that same something.

Thank you. I don’t see how anyone would find that “difficult to understand.”

 

[Brooklyn]

Proponent - one who argues in favor of something : advocate

You can be a recipient of something without being a proponent of that same something.

Thank you. I don’t see how anyone would find that “difficult to understand.”

I actually find that hard to understand. Especially when it comes to how we receive communion. We have a choice in how we may receive. No one can force someone to receive on the tongue, and no one can force us to receive in the hand. So if we choose one way over the other, doesn’t that make us a proponent? What am I missing?